Mr. Baird is returning to Carleton College for the first time since his graduation in 1963 upon his graduation from Carleton College. Mr. Baird attended law school at Stanford University during his residency at Stanford. Mr. Baird met his wife Sarah who has become quite an accomplished lawyer in her own, right? Following his tenure at Stanford. Mr. Bear joined the prominent Phoenix law firm of Lewis and Roca where he currently resides as a senior partner, although. Mr. Barrett has distinguished himself in the field of commercial litigation. His most impressive accomplishments have come in the area of civil rights throughout his career. Mr. Baird has been concerned with what he refers to as laborers of commitment or public interest work consequently. Mr. Baird has actively pursued pro bono civil liberties cases. Mr. Bear's commitment to the common weal. However, extends Beyond merely his professional Pursuits when he is not practicing law. Mr. Baird can often be found performing mental Illusions as a professional magician in his tradition of contributing to the public welfare, the funds generated by the performances of the great boldini are donated to charity. Despite his fascination with magic the success which mr. Barrett has achieved in the realm of First Amendment Liberties and criminal rights is no mere sleight of hand fresh out of law school. Mr. Baird played an active role in securing the fundamental guarantees delineating The Landmark Supreme Court decision Miranda versus Arizona this decision States and part that any individual taken into custody as both the right to counsel and the right to be advised of his or her constitutional rights rather than constituting the culmination of his career. However, Miranda versus Arizona was merely a catalytic step in mr. Barrett's highly successful and noteworthy career as an advocate of constitutional freedoms. Mr. Baird has successfully argued numerous pro bono cases, including the a typical yet highly influential decision of Baird versus State Bar of Arizona in which his client was his own wife. Presently. Mr. Baird is acting as the lead lawyer in the case of Presbyterian Church versus United States, which is concerned with the proper role of government and its relation to religious congregations in this pro bono suit. The government is being charged with violating the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure and the First Amendment rights to the free exercise of religion and the separation of church and state as a result of its attempt to infiltrate religious institutions with government informants while the case is currently pending in federal appeals court most observers agree that this case will eventually reach the Supreme Court. It is quite likely therefore there. Mr. Bear will be presented in the near future with yet another opportunity to significantly affect the lives of all of us a goal, which is influence the entirety of his extensive legal career. It is therefore an honor and a privilege to present to you today. Mr. Peter Baird who will be speaking about confessions host spies and toads, please welcome. Mr. Peter Bergen. Thank you very much Mike when I used to go to convo and I was required to go to convo and those days it took about 30 seconds before I would tune the speaker out and start having an out-of-body experiences consequently in my remaining 15 seconds with you today. I thought what I would do is to tell you something that you can really take with you from this convo. And since I cannot remember a single convo I ever went to at least you can remember one thing that can start making a difference in your lives today. And because this convocation is about the law. I will tell you of Allah you have never heard of. It is in fact a Timeless immutable and absolutely wonderful law. It is as follows. Eat a live toad first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you for the rest of the day. Consequently, if this convo is the worst thing that happens to you today. You just ate the wrong breakfast. When I arrived here from rural, Idaho in 1959 as a freshman Carlton was very different. Larry Gould was President chapel and convo were mandatory freshman even wore beanies women had hours. There was one minority student on campus Williams and Gridley still stood. There was no rothblatt and I can guarantee you there were no condom sold on this campus and from my Dusty Recollections of those sexually repressed days there probably was not a condom to be found anywhere in Rice County. I mean in those days it was 1959 Eisenhower was President cars still had fins Richie Valley buddy, Ritchie Valens, Buddy. Holly in the Big Bopper died. Ronald Reagan was a Barracks so salesman for Death Valley Days on television and probably the most vacuous symbol of all was that in 1959 the Mattel Corporation introduced the Barbie doll. Now if all of this sounds too, you quaintly old-fashioned then the American constitutional standards of the fall of 1959 should seem almost Paleolithic for racial minority segregation was still widespread and in many areas blacks could not vote at all for those who are charged with crime and were poor. They were not constitutionally entitled to have counsel appointed to defend them for those who were arrested and subjected to custodial. And they did not have to be told of their constitutional rights to remain silent for those who lived in cities their votes did not count the same as for those who lived in rural areas for women gender discrimination was lawful and virtually all abortions were felonies for those who wanted to be lawyers teachers or public employees political beliefs were examined as preconditions to employment for organized religion their docility ensured that there were very few serious clashes between church and state for public school students their days almost invariably started with a highly sectarian prayer. Now today all of this has changed during the past 29 years American constitutional law has undergone a radical revolution and in some infant Smo ways. I have been a part of this process as a very ordinary graduate of this. College I have had the opportunity to work on some extraordinary cases that I want to share with you today and that could affect your lives. If you ever go to church or synagogue. If you ever want your personal beliefs to be immune from governmental inquiry or if you are ever arrested one of these cases arises under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and that amendment protects among other things and individuals right against self-incrimination two of these cases arise under the First Amendment, which is you'll recall protects freedom of speech belief, press assembly and religion. These cases are first Miranda versus Arizona and which the Supreme Court held in 1966 that suspects must be told of their constitutional rights before being questioned in custody next is bared versus State Bar of Arizona in which the Supreme Court held in 1971 that the political If so bar applicants could not be examined as preconditions to the practice of Law. And finally the Presbyterian Church versus United States government in which we are currently battling to keep government spies and undercover recording devices out of religious worship Services, unless the government has a search warrant probable cause to believe that a crime is in progress or a compelling reason to be there now before I talk about these cases. I want you to understand a couple of things these cases involve the hard work and considerable sacrifice of many other lawyers and individuals beside myself. I am not a public interest law a lawyer. I am not a constitutional scholar or a full-time civil liberties specialist. I'm basically a litigation lawyer and a large Phoenix Law Firm who was some sensitivities acquired here some minimal. Call skills learned at Stanford some uncommon support from my law firm and most of all the granite strengths of my wife Sarah at fortuitously found myself in controversial cases that had a I am proud to say made a difference now in an historical sense Miranda versus Arizona actually started in 1637. When a Brazen young Puritan by the name of John Lilburn was arrested. And required by the Star Chamber to take an oath and answer questions having refused to answer any questions. Mr. Leo born was find imprisoned and tortured for years later following cromwell's Victory Parliament declared his treatment illegal and at that time gave birth to what has become today the privilege against self-incrimination found in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution now Ernesto Miranda, probably never heard of John little born or perhaps even of England itself. He was a marginally educated Hispanic who had a history of arrests convictions and violence and sexual assaults on March 13, 1963. Miranda was arrested he was taken into custody not advised of his constitutional rights and placed in a lineup after the lineup. He asked the police how he had done and they dissembled telling him. He had not done. Very well, but not telling him that the victims could not positively identify. At that point he confessed to two separate charges a 1962 robbery charge in a 1963 rape charge. These confessions were damning. They were used against him in two separate trials. Miranda was convicted on all charges and he was sentenced to 20 to 30 years. This is a copy of the now-famous rape confession by Ernest Miranda and it is as anatomical as it is ungrammatical and so I will not offend your sensibilities. After his convictions were affirmed by the Arizona Supreme Court. Our firm was asked to represent Miranda before the United States Supreme Court we agreed to do so and because at that time we thought the record was a little better in the rape case. We took the rape conviction to the Supreme Court rather than the robbery conviction. If one was unconstitutional we reasoned then surely the other confession would too because they were both extracted at the same time under identical circumstances on June 30 1966 by votive 524 a sharply divided Supreme Court reversed Miranda's rape conviction in that historic decision the Court held that before any custodial interrogation a suspect must be told that he has the right to remain silent that any statement he makes may be used as evidence against him that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that an attorney will be appointed. We need to represent him if he cannot afford one while some loudly condemned the decision as if it were a serious blow to law enforcement. The plain fact was that the FBI had used those same warnings for years and years while we were Overjoyed to win. We were absolutely dismayed that the Supreme Court in its opinion had held that the decision would not apply retroactively to convictions already rendered and would only apply prospectively to cases that were not yet final now this meant that his rape conviction was invalid but his simultaneous robbery confession and conviction that we did not appeal stood unaffected by the Supreme Court's decision. It became my vexing task as the junior member of this team to have both confessions treated the same and somehow get the robbery confession declared unconstitutional to after several thousand. More hours of work and hearings and briefs. We finally succeeded and the robbery confession fell the ultimate irony of the Miranda case is that Miranda himself did not benefit a quit from his own decision. He was never released on bail. He did not serve any less time and he may have even served more time because of the scrutiny the parole board cave to it's very famous applicant. Miranda was retried in both cases his confessions were not used and because of his notoriety. He was tried under the Alias of Jose Gomez, which I'm told is the Spanish equivalent to John Doe. He was again convicted on all charges as his common-law wife decided to testify against him and he continued to serve time at the Arizona State Prison where he worked as a barber and was considered a celebrity among all of its inmates. Eventually in March 31 1975 Ernesto. Miranda was released from prison and he drifted from job to job supporting himself principally by selling autographed Miranda warning cards for two dollars a pop. On January 31 New Year's Eve 1976 just nine months to the day of his release or nesto. Miranda was stabbed to death with a 6-inch lettuce knife during a bar fight in the deuce in Phoenix just a few blocks from my office when Miranda's attacker was arrested. He was read as constitutional rights from a warning card named after his victim Attorney General Edwin. Meese has railed against the Miranda decision and has even organized a task force to try to have the Miranda decision overruled. Although the Supreme Court has wobbled a time or two the Miranda case stands as the law of the land to this day for at least two basic compelling reasons. First prior to the Miranda decision courts were continually wrestling with the issue of whether criminal confessions were voluntary and admissible in evidence after Miranda. This task became vastly easier. If a suspect was advised of his or her constitutional rights and thereafter confessed that confession was almost certainly voluntary and could be used in evidence. But the other more important reason the Miranda decision stands to this day as this organized criminals know their constitutional rights educated people like, you know, your constitutional rights for the poor and the unsophisticated the Constitution should not be a 200 year old Secret. now unlike Ernesto Miranda, Sarah Baird had certainly heard of England was well aware of the stewards Cromwell the Star Chamber the tutors in a very very distant sense what Henry the 8th introduced into English law my wife Sarah helped eliminate from American law some four hundred and thirty-seven years later as you may recall in 1534 Henry the 8th imposed what are called test Odes upon his subjects in his effort to break with Rome and to promote his momentary funnest for in Belen unlike an oath of office that entails a pledge of support and that may be broken by a subsequent act a test oath exacts of vowels or disavow files of specified beliefs or associations, usually political or religious and character and may be broken by beliefs and not by ax Since Henry the 8th test O's have been used again and again in English and American history by different repressors and with different victims in this country such owes have targeted American royalists and the 18th century American Confederates in the 19th century and American Communists and other non conformance in the 20th century contesting such O's has had an honorable history in this country Alexander Hamilton fought test toes After the Revolution following the Civil War lawyers teachers corporate officers and clergy opposed test owes During the Reconstruction Era and in 1867, the United States Supreme Court struck down test owes apply to a lawyer and to a Catholic priest who are both accused of having had Confederate sympathies in 1964. Sarah beard first encountered the legacy of Henry the 8th when she was working in Washington, DC. And when she personally felt some of the aftershocks of institutionalized McCarthyism her second more important encounter occurred in 1967 after she had graduated from Stanford law school had placed first on the Arizona bar examination and confronted a test. Oh that was explicitly propounded to determine the acceptability of her political beliefs having marched with dr. King in Washington labored and Texas and Mississippi for civil rights and worked on the Zuni Indian reservation for Legal Services. Sarah was not the type who would compliantly sign such an oath in a practical sense. She was exactly the right type of person to challenge this oath because the most subversive group to which she had ever belonged was a Wethersfield Connecticut Girl Scout Troop and the most subversive thought she had ever had was the decision. Not to enroll at Carleton College where she would have been a member of my class of 1963. So Sarah dug in her heels put her career and conscience on the line and refuse to tell the bar examiners was there she had ever belonged to a communist organization. They were aghast. They simply couldn't believe that you would do such a thing. I recall vividly one of them sang an utter disbelief that she was after all a ton for girl and a 10-4 girl would never do such a thing. In very short order this number one bar placement person was denied admission to the bar. She lost at the Arizona Supreme Court, which considered her case for approximately five minutes while we stood out on a hall after that. What took the Arizona Supreme Court five minutes to decide took the United States Supreme Court two years and two separate hearings to consider according to the state Bar's positioned. They wanted to know if Sarah harbored any revolutionary thoughts whether Mark suster Jeffersonian and origin and if such thoughts did lurk in her head, they promised that they wouldn't let someone like that into their Bar Association. We responded that Sarah's conduct her character and her professional. And see where the only legitimate areas of inquiry and that a person's beliefs are absolutely immune from State examination and deed. I even suggested an open session of the United States Supreme Court and to the dismay of not the utter horror of Chief Justice burger that if illegal or unconstitutional beliefs determined whether one should be a lawyer then our president at the time Richard Nixon should be disbarred forthwith for believing in and waging an unconstitutional War when it came to mr. Nixon. We didn't know the half of it at that point. During the hearings before The Supreme Court some of the justices expressed the same kind of sentiments as did the bar examiners and they simply could not believe that a woman. That was another thing that really kind of cut in their crop was who was obviously not a subversive who was educated at Colorado College and Stanford University would not say whether she had ever been a communist and would not divulge her beliefs to the men who ran the Arizona Bard missions as we explained to the court Sarah wanted to take an oath of office and oath to support the Constitution and she could not simultaneously under my not Oath by answering the test. Oh on February 23 1971 Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion for a deeply divided court and by a five to four vote struck down simply and decisively test hose for lawyers Justice black wrote and I quote we hold that views and beliefs are June from Bar Association inquisitions designed to lay a foundation for barring an applicant from the practice of law. That was the essence of the decision Thomas Moore would have been proud. I was the next case I want to discuss is in litigation right this moment and is in a sense the modern version of a centuries-old tension between church and state originating before Henry the 8th, raise the monasteries. And before Henry II Ambiguously had Thomas Becket murdered a Canterbury Cathedral. Let me tell you about this case in early 1984 the ins or Immigration and Naturalization Service formulated what it called operation Sojourner to gather evidence about an in the is INS has turned words to disband the sanctuary movement, which was and is a predominantly religious Coalition of churches synagogues and individuals who support temporary Asylum for Central American refugees. Those refugees who seek to escape from the death squads in War and who are almost always deported from this country as being merely economic refugees to gather information about this dangerous movement called The Sanctuary movement the ins employed to individuals Solomon Graham and Jesus Cruz both of whom had known criminal backgrounds who are not trained at all in law enforcement who were equipped with electronic body bugs or recording devices and who were turned loose in violation of written governmental guidelines to frankly spy on churches though. They were paid in currency for their services. They should have been paid in pieces of silver. Between March 1984 and January 1985 Jesus Cruz and Solomon Graham fraudulently posed as worshippers infiltrated Presbyterian Lutheran and other denominations in Arizona, they monitored and electronically recorded prayers hymns Bible readings confessions of faith assurances of Pardon sermons telephone conversation with nuns license plates of worshipers and Spanish language Bible study classes. As an example of operation Sojourner. We know the most about one day and that one day was October 1 1984. We know that because we have the tapes from the government Jesus and Solomon on that day recorded a telephone conversation with a Roman Catholic nun by the name of sister Dottie sister died. He told them that there would be a dinner at a friend's siskin Renewal Center and later and ecumenical prayer service Solomon and hey so's went to this Roman Catholic Retreat run by the franciscans to monitor that dinner they then went to the parking lot of the Presbyterian Church Sarah and I attend and dictated into their body bugs the license plates of the worshippers assemble. They then entered the sanctuary they took a bullet and at the door that announce the order of worship and they recorded an ecumenical service conducted by Catholic Methodist Lutheran Presbyterian and Unitarian clergy on the tape. You can hear Jesus and solemn own recording that entire service but heading for the door when the collection plate comes their way at the conclusion of that day's tape. You can even hear them relieving themselves in the church Men's Room your tax dollars at work. When the facts about these infiltration activities surfaced the impacts Upon A congregations were profound attendance contributions sermons pastoral counseling openness missions congregational cohesion. We're all detrimentally affected One mission Lutheran Church in the Phoenix. Barrio was forced to suspend regular Spanish language Bible study sessions all together because members were simply afraid to attend their church at that church green cards were not a precondition to worship. At no time did Jesus Cruz or Solomon Graham find any evidence of criminal wrongdoing in any of these Services? Although there was a criminal trial at which some of the sanctuary workers were convicted of various immigration crimes, which is now being appealed in a separate case. None of the evidence from any of the worship Services involved in our case was used to indict or convict supported by a wide Coalition of denominations as diverse as the Quakers and the southern Baptists our Law Firm filed a lawsuit in federal court in Phoenix in January 1986 for the purpose of having government spies in worship Services declared illegal Unless the government has a search warrant or a probable cause to believe a crime has been committed in the early drafts of our complaint. I listed Jesus Crews as they lead defendant just before filing the case. I suddenly realized that as drafted the short-term name of this case was going to be the Presbyterian and Lutheran denominations verses Jesus that would never do so wisely. I change the lead defendant from Jesus cruise to the United States of America, which in fact should be and is the lead defendant when we filed the case. It created a deluge of publicity. It became front-page news from New York Times to the Los Angeles Times and interestingly enough the reaction of so many people was that they couldn't believe that their government had sent spies and electronics and to worship Services of churches. But if it did it must have had a real good reason for being there and some really wrong was going on in those church services. In fact, there wasn't the principal points of dispute upon which this case will hinge are these the government says that church services are open to everyone Saints and Sinners miscreants and therefore the government can be there to personally and electronically recording the proceedings. We contend that yes indeed. The services are open to worship, but not to activities inconsistent with worship one is not invited for example to practice the trombone during worship service. In our view, excuse me in our view neither is the government welcomed without compelling reasons to monitor or record. The services. The government says that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was not a bridged here because these agents didn't physically disrupt the services. They didn't forcibly prevent people from doing anything and they were well behaved with her body bugs purring away. We say that government infiltration into worship Services abridges the free exercise of religion in a most Insidious Way by making people suspicious of others by curbing their openness to their God and by creating an atmosphere of caution and distrust, we point to the destructive impact upon these very churches and also to the historical experience in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were spies. Churches and synagogues was in his commonplace incredible the very month. Our lawsuit was filed the United States state department issued a blistering written denunciation of the Soviet Union for guess what sending spies into churches for undermining the freedom of religion in that country. The government also argues that the First Amendment doesn't protect what it calls abstract subjective or speculative values to the government religion evidently consists primarily of buildings. Bingo games cash flow grounds. In response, we can see that subjective abstract and speculative values were in fact compromise. We rely on to the great Commandments about loving the Lord. Thy God with all thy heart with all thy soul and with all thy mind and about loving thy neighbor as thyself to demonstrate that they're absolutely right subjective speculative and Abstract qualities are really at issue here there right as rain on that, but we wanted to meet these contentions head on because we contend that these abstract speculative and subjective values were exactly what the first amendment was designed to protect far more than stained glass windows were collection plates potlucks oceans from the New Testament perspective of Presbyterians and Lutheran's who are the principal plaintiffs here. The church is not a physical building but rather is a community of faith that happen. To me at a building frequently called a church. The case was lost at the trial court as the federal judge held that churches have no standing to come into court and to complain about government spies in their services later. The case was appealed to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. And there we heard the justice department our lawyer argued to the Appellate Court that the government could enter any worship service at any time for essentially any reason we argue that appealed nearly a year ago last July 1987, and we have not heard a decision yet. The case has been delayed by the judge death of one of the judges who heard the case. And a decision was recently decided by the United States Supreme Court in an opinion by Justice O'Connor, which is pretentious portentous of the problems that we may have ahead of us. I think that what we are facing is a possible loss, but we are very likely to go to the Supreme Court where we will battle it with a government there the case that Justice O'Connor decided was to reverse the ninth circuit where we're pinning and to permit the government to build a road over government property on or near sacred Indian religious sites while that case is not that close to our situation. The regrettable thing is the way the majority wrote the opinion was basically to say that unless the government for bids and prohibits religion flat out. That anything it does to incidentally interfere is not of First Amendment moment. It scares the Daylights out of us for over a hundred years citizens have suspected that their government has infiltrated worship Services during the Abolitionist labor civil rights and anti-war movements. Once we had irrefutable proof of this shocking practice. It became Our obligation to defend the Integrity of worship and to seek redress from the federal courts. It's important for you to know. We do not seek money. This is not one of those cases where the headlines say churches want billions from the government. What we want is a declaration of rights under a declaratory judgment action. That would be a declaration from our federal courts that would remind our government what James Madison said about the first amendment when he wrote it back in 1789 and that is there is not a shadow of right in the general government to enter medal with religion. It's least interference would be the most flagrant use of patient now in conclusion each of these cases with which I've had the privilege of being involved Miranda Baird Presbyterian church and really a flock of others share some important commonalities first. They were all very difficult dollar Alice toils for many committed lawyers. They all engendered controversy and criticism and a number of instances even outright abuse, which is actually going on right now. They were all lost in the early rounds of litigation much of the work had to be done under the heavy mantle of discouragement and the eventual Supreme Court decisions that were rendered were rendered by the thinnest narrowest margins imaginable, but most importantly these cases represented at least to me into Sarah irrepressible strivings for a more just society and for a truer fulfillment of the vision found in that Constitution and more particularly in the Bill of Rights. While this constitution is this convocation is about Ernesto Miranda and Sarah and Presbyterians and the Lutheran's the Constitution and our courts. It's also in a sense about Carlton. places like Carlton and people just like you if the values you learn here mean anything then they are really worthy of your commitment your defense and sometimes your sacrifice. It is inevitable that you are in your lifetimes going to face in justices and they will be both large and small and when that happens, I hope to see you know, I expect to see you in the trenches. I will not be coming back for my 25th reunions. I haven't been back in 25 years me ever may never get back, but I want to thank you so much for letting me share on behalf of Sarah and our family some of the thoughts that we've had about the Constitution some of the things that we have done and also to let a middle-aged guy live out a fantasy. It doesn't happen very often. Thank you very much.